The special conditions are the result of CCP reacting to them being Very High Traffic locations. They may be “official” now, but did CCP make them that? Or did CCP bow to the inevitable and put in rule changes that kept them from having to keep quite so many air conditioners and fire extinguishers around the server which serves those nodes?
2 Likes
Yes, CCP made them special “trade hubs” with a different ruleset.
The emergence of the trade hubs predates the “special conditions” by some time.
The “special conditions” are a result of them being trade hubs, not the cause.
5 Likes
Okay, we have an English problem. Let me restate. Did CCP MAKE them trade hubs, or did they become trade hubs without CCP’s efforts, FIRST, THEN get anointed, since that was the best way to keep one of their computers from turning into toast?
2 Likes
The special conditions are a result of CCP implementing them there in those system, not of players.
No amount of player behavior can change the ruleset of a system, only CCP can.
We do not have an English problem.
Let’s do an analogy. I like analogies.
Wal-Mart has moved in and does a brisk business.
The two-lane in front of their store is constant gridlock. The City Council, (who mostly didn’t want Wal Mart to move in, anyway,) vote to add a light and a turn lane in front of Wal-Mart.
Did the City Council then CAUSE Wal-Mart to become the most trafficked store in town, or did they act to alleviate other issues as a RESULT of Wal-Mart being the most trafficked store in town?
3 Likes
Interestingly I heard somebody argue that Wal-Mart is good for more artisanal style stores. That Wal-Mart is great for buying the name brand stuff and in bulk, but if you want something not in bulk…you go to the smaller stores which can carve out a niche near Wal-Marts. Unfortunately it was a comment in passing and I have yet to see anything supporting it…still an intriguing hypothesis.
And yes, “good” is subjective. Sourcing stuff from all over HS…yuck. If you are a ganker…that might be a boon. If you are a careful and prudent hauler it could be a boon.
Then again, if it requires your “draconian” changes it could just be a bad all around.
No. This is just flat out wrong. You have nothing to support this at all. The rules you pointed to came into existence after Jita emerged as a trade hub.
Exactly this.
And again, this…
Salvos you are very weak ground here. You have nothing ATM.
And if I’ll issue this warning…does anyone really want me to start going on about transaction costs and New Institutionalist economics? Probably not… 
Yes, exactly.
Jita becomes a trade hub => Jita getting special rules.
Amarr becomes a trade hub => Amarr getting special rules.
The arrow of causality points only in one direction.
Similarly, if say Inghenges were given these rules it is highly unlikely it would become a trade hub. If anything it might work the opposite and turn it into a wasteland.
Lets not.
Lets talk about EVE and not out of game IRL analogies.
Another thread Salvoshed…
1 Like
Did Jita have special “trade hub” status before Yulai?
No. But then Yulai was a creation of CCP, literally, with the super highways. When those were removed Yulai stopped being a trade hub.
CCP created Yulai. I have yet to see that CCP deliberately created Jita. Once CCP removed the super highways, Jita emerged…CCP’s changing rules was reactionary not causal.
That’s where you’re wrong, the “special conditions” that are in play for trade hubs ARE the result of player behaviour; we are the reason that the rule sets were changed for those specific systems.
For example Jita struggled during the Summer of Rage, it was hard-capped for days at a time, along with other such player activities such as Burn Jita the result is that Jita now runs on its own reinforced node, and has lost its mission hub status, asteroid belts and anchoring rights.
Player behaviour leading to a changed rule set for a specific system.
1 Like
No, the problem is you are not getting what people are saying.
We are noting that it goes like this:
1, 2, 3…
1 preceeds 2, which preceeds 3. You want to turn that on it’s head…and have provided nothing to support your claims.
Just as you claim the trade hub special rules are not a function of players, only of CCP, your exchanges are not a function of Sean’s posting, only of your own dishonesty.
1 Like
Nope, they were the result of emergent player actions. Jita trading kept building up, pushing the servers to their limit. CCP took various actions to get people out of it, to reduce the load (removing agents, removing mining belts, removing means of production) all in the hope to reduce the load.
Alas, the hub remained, continually pushing the servers to the limit, resulting in population caps coming into place (yay for 1K pop limits & the Jita gate queues on busy weekends)
Servers got better; pop limits got boosted (haven’t seen a queue for a while now), but all those special rules got implemented because players really like trading at one hub, so CCP had to find ways to keep the servers running smooth, without hampering player experience too much (tradehubs are heavy on server load)
What didn’t help is how professionalized ganking became, making it more dangerous to transport large amount of goods between tradehubs & bringing more focus to one tradehub. Rens & Hek are all but shadows of their former selfes. Dodixie is slowly decreasing. Only Amarr managed to hold on as a strong general tradehub outside Jita
2 Likes
Did Jita have “trade hub” status before Yulai?
Did Yulai ever have “trade hub” status?
Edit read it more closely & realized it was a trap question:
Jita was a small trade hub during Yulai main hub trading.
Trade hubs are designated like that because they offer a wide variety of goods for sale & to buy.
Have a story from the old days of the Yulai Trade hub period: The Yulai incident; when Zombies defied Concord
What happened there had profound changes for CCP & player interaction in the game, as ever since, CCP took a much more hands-off approach on emergent player behaviour, choosing to support it more then trying to force things by direct intervention.
1 Like
Here we go a Salvoshing…
Yeah. That was mean on my part. I had typed, and retyped a reply three times and just couldn’t get into your head.